Gorazd Andrejc

Religious Language-Games (The Case of the Word "Holy Spirit")



Posted: Sunday, January 20, 2008

by
http://exeter.academia.edu/GorazdAndrejc

In my experience, many fellow Christians think neither long enough nor deep enough about application of religious language and about how interpretations, and even the truth and the falsity of doctrines, are decided in Christian communities. It does not hurt to observe our language-use and to think "from the bottom up" about these matters - with this I mean starting with observation and with the awareness of the actual use of religious terms in communities, and then think about the doctrines and interpretations of the Bible in the light of the dynamics of how Christians have used and are using religious terms.

For example, when Pentacostals are talking about the "Holy Spirit", they are using this term in connection with their religious practices, which for many include speaking in unrecognizable tongues, for some also falling to the ground in trans-like state etc. The meaning of the word "Holy Spirit" for them is determined by its use in the context of their practices. For (believing) Roman Catholics, the word "Holy Spirit" is closely associated with the institution and performing of the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as with what the Vatican Commission for Doctrine says about it etc. Directly or indirectly, these factors shape the meaning of the word for them. Seventh-day Adventists usually associate the word "Holy Spirit" with more intellectual leading of the individual believers (or converts) to "the truth" as they understand it, which for Adventists (and not only for them) means their own interpretation of the biblical text. There are of course similarities and parallels here, but in this way we could build our list on and on (Note that in all three cases we are talking about Christians of Western Christianity, yet still the differences of the usage of the term are observable to the person modestly familiar with the communal life/practices of these communities).

The point is of course that the meanings of religious terms is determined by the use of these terms in religious communities . There is no fixed extension, no unmovable point of reference, unfortunately, outside the human life and usage of words, something with which we could pinpoint the meaning of a term once and for all from the neutral point of view. This is not to deny that, say, Holy Spirit exists objectively, and even independently, so to speak, of humans (even if all people would die, Christians believe Holy Spirit would still exist, although I am not sure who and how would determine the meaning of the word "Holy Spirit" then, as God hardly uses English, or even human grammar, in heaven... or does he?). Rather, my statement means that it is always people who use the term "Holy Spirit", and they do that in negotiation with others, immersed in the usage of this term by the communities, past and present (the "tradition" and the present Church) - never individually and independently of the community. That is simply impossible.

If you are a more conservative protestant, you might say at this point: "But hey, in the Bible it is God who speaks about the Holy Spirit, and you can see there what the word really means! That solves it." Under close inspection however, things are not that simple. When biblical writers are using language, they are also using words in the contexts of their cultures, lives and communities. They did not stand outside of cultures, communities, language etc. Their "situatedness" crucially influences their use of words, the analogies they use to convey meanings etc. Think of the hebrew expression Ruach Elohim - "Breath of God" which we retrospectively translate as "Holy Spirit" - which comes from the notion of "breath", physically speaking, and is used in this way at many places in OT, but is then also extended to include more spiritual senses. The "spiritual" use doubtlessly arises out from what we may call spiritual experience of old Hebrews and other nations who influenced their use of words (yes, there were such influences). The Bible as an inspired text is nevertheless not and can not be outside of the human language, and any language gets its meaning from human lives, the communities, traditions, customs.

And it is here that some interesting negotiations are involved. To go back to our example: With what sort of experiences or events Christians associate the workings of "Holy Spirit"? This has to be negotiated by individuals in the community. Do you see your experience of the Holy Spirit similar to, say, that of Apostle Paul as described by Luke in the Acts of Apostles? Is the language that is used in the Bible the only possible or only appropriate language to describe the "works of the Holy Spirit" still today? If Holy Spirit today does not act like it acted in the biblical times, as some believe, how do we use the word today? Who decides these questions and how? Well, obviously Christian communities decide and therefore in practice also "regulate" the use of this word, for ex. when trying to determine whether someone in the community or outside of it has had genuine experience with Holy Spirit or not. The processes of deciding these matters, which means also deciding on the correct language use, are negotiations inside the Christian communities.

Theologically speaking, we Christians are involved in the life of a Christian communities as religious beings, God's creatures, who as such have religious feelings and intuitions. And as such we can and usually do contribute to the negotiating process of the community (actively) in determining the nuances of meaning of the word "Holy Spirit", or indeed, we might only be passive receptors of the teaching, meanings which we accept as givens by the community (although the active/passive distinction is not black or white - even those few more active contributors to the meanings of religious words are for the most of the time passive in receiving traditional meanings on the grounds of which they build). As even different individuals in the same local communities can have slightly different understanding of the term "Holy Spirit", the negotiation process (which includes the Bible teaching and interpreting) inside the communities regarding the application of the terms is a constant process, as is life.

To many, such line of thinking sounds very relativistic, perhaps even dangerous one for a Christian to take. Yet, please note that I am not denying the objective existence of Holy Spirit, neither of the inspiration of the Bible. What I am talking about are the practices of the usage of religious language in Christian communities. We have to be honest and perceptive regarding this in order to have a better grasp of what the doctrine itself is. Remember that there is no "neutral point" outside communities and outside language which any of us is privileged to stand on, and from which we could judge or see what application of the term we should adopt. Even about God we can only talk by using words, which come from the traditions we stand in, or oppose to. I firmly believe that grasping this fact enables us to understand our faith better, whatever Christian denomination, or even religion, we belong to.

------

Gorazd Andrejc is a PhD student at University of Exeter, UK, studying philosophical theology. His websites are http://www.eprofile.ex.ac.uk/ gorazdandrejc and http://exeter.academia.edu/GorazdAndrejc.

This Article has been viewed 611 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.